Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Canada in the number two spot with a score of 91.6 and once again USA down the list in 25th spot with a score of 77.8
It's the same story for economic freedom, and also freedom of the press.
So can we put that nonsense of the U.S. having superior freedoms in ANY area to bed once and for all.
A country that just went through paroxysms of angst over the flying of a certain flag and is having statues torn down all over the south should know a thing or two of how some symbols serve to trigger others and be far less critical and opinionated of it's very rare happenstance in a foreign country.
^^^^^ Except that you're arguing with yourself.
Up to this point in the thread at least, the use of the word superior is yours alone.
We don't have hate speech laws, you do.
What percentage that fact contributes to how free any one U.S. citizen feels overall is completely subjective and up to that citizen.
If that one fact comprises 99.9% of how free that citizen feels, you can go ahead think that person is an idiot, but that citizen is unlikely to care about how a Canadian feels an American should feel about freedom, and really has no motivation to care about that.
Your memory failing you? Or do you willfully ignore stuff you think others will too?
Please review posts numbers 114, 116 and 117.
I could have sworn the posters were implying superiority in speech freedoms. . I could be wrong however. If I'm incorrect in my assessment of those poster's intent, I'll yield to public opinion and eat crow.
I wish to thank you for bringing my posts back to life.
I think the hat wearer was looking for a fight. Here is why.
The restaurant manager never refused service and he never said anything to the customer about the logo on his hat. The manager merely asked the customer to remove his hat. Then the customer turned and walked out of the restaurant. Then he complained and lied to the owners and said he was refused service because of the logo on his hat.
Why did the customer lie and say he was being refused service, and why did he lie and say it was because of the logo on his hat when the manager had never said anything about the logo? There was no reason for it unless the customer was looking for a fight and tried to create a fight by wearing that particular hat.
Wrong.
It could be that the MAGA hat wearing guy is an entitled guy who is used to getting his way and doesn't like being questioned about anything, and that is light years more likely than the assertion that he was looking for a fight.
Additionally....
1. If all he wanted was a potential fight and not a meal, why wouldn't he pick a less expensive restaurant? Assuming he hadn't been questioned, he would have been seated and would have paid for his meal. Or do you think if he hadn't been questioned he would have walked away anyway?
2. The likelihood that he is an American is probably close to 100%. If there had been some sort of physical altercation, depending on how that played out, it might stand in the way of his being let back into the country at some future date. He either needs to be there for business, or likes traveling there as a tourist. The thought that he would look to do something that might jeopardize that doesn't make a lot of sense.
Quote:
Removing a hat is the polite custom in Canada when you go into a fancy, classy restaurant and if that customer happened to be a Canadian he would already know that and wouldn't have worn a hat in there in the first place, nor made an issue of it, unless he was deliberately looking for a fight.
So, in a metropolitan area that is right on the border with the United States, the manager is going to tilt toward assuming that the MAGA hatted guy is a Canadian looking for a fight rather than an 'Ugly American' who is ignorant re the preferred custom? That doesn't make a lot of sense either.
OR
You are trying to say it is unlikely that the guy is a Canadian...and I would agree.
Quote:
If the customer was a polite foreign visitor from any other country, including from USA, then as a polite visitor and a guest he should expect to follow the old adage "when in Rome do as the Romans do". He should have removed the hat as requested without making an issue of it no matter what kind of hat it was or what kind of logo it had on it. Because that's what a classy person does when they go into a restaurant.
I agree, but then I don't think people who act in an entitled manner, which I think is very likely the MAGA hatted guy did, are polite.....and most of the people I know would agree with me.
Quote:
If he was an American visitor and if he was not looking for a fight - why, as a guest of Canada, was he trying to make a political statement about America while visiting Canada at a time when tension is high between Canada and America, and why do it by wearing that particular type of low class hat with that logo and all its inflammatory connotations into a classy restaurant?
He may be someone on a long trip, who sees things differently than you do politically, who thinks that over the course of a long trip, depending on where he goes, he might run into a number of people who are quite conservative (which might be even more likely if he is an entitled sort), and he might not feel as 'fraught with tension' based on that. Your previous PM was certainly to the right of Trudeau. Not everyone in your country has the same perspective you do/sees things as you do politically.
Quote:
There can be only two explanations for his behavior - either the guy was an instigator who was looking for a fight and knows how to tell lies and make up lame excuses
^^^^^ Unlikely.
Quote:
or else he is an extremely stupid, bone-headed moron who needs somebody to put a leash on him and keep him away from polite society and nice restaurants.
If he is lacking the edification and awareness that make the first nine words above the case, it is still only your opinion that the 'dog solution' should be employed, and that he be denied entrance. In other words, nothing he is required to pay any attention to.
Quote:
And if he is a foreign visitor who doesn't know how to be a polite guest in other countries then he should stay home.
.
Again, your opinion. Not anything from any official, which of course he would have to pay attention to.
"Bar owners, managers, and tenders across America are allowed to refuse service to individuals in “Make America Great Again” hats. That’s what Manhattan Supreme Court Justice David Cohen ruled Wednesday when he dismissed a lawsuit filed by a man who was ejected from a New York City watering hole because of his MAGA headwear,"
"In throwing out the lawsuit, Cohen determined that supporting Trump is not, actually, a form of religion. “Plaintiff does not state any faith-based principle to which the hat relates,” the justice said, per the Post. Instead, Piatek’s removal from The Happiest Hour was simply a “petty” slight, and pettiness is not against the law."
"Bar owners, managers, and tenders across America are allowed to refuse service to individuals in “Make America Great Again” hats. That’s what Manhattan Supreme Court Justice David Cohen ruled Wednesday when he dismissed a lawsuit filed by a man who was ejected from a New York City watering hole because of his MAGA headwear,"
"In throwing out the lawsuit, Cohen determined that supporting Trump is not, actually, a form of religion. “Plaintiff does not state any faith-based principle to which the hat relates,” the justice said, per the Post. Instead, Piatek’s removal from The Happiest Hour was simply a “petty” slight, and pettiness is not against the law."
Your memory failing you? Or do you willfully ignore stuff you think others will too?
Please review posts numbers 114, 116 and 117.
I could have sworn the posters were implying superiority in speech freedoms. . I could be wrong however. If I'm incorrect in my assessment of those poster's intent, I'll yield to public opinion and eat crow.
I wish to thank you for bringing my posts back to life.
I wondered is adding the word assertion to that post might come back to bite me
Posts, yes posts.
You are the one who went past freedom of speech into other freedoms, so re the other freedoms you mentioned you were arguing with yourself. Did you see anyone else discussing other freedoms?
Re asserting that they feel our freedom of I'll give you, partially, posts #114 and #116, but....without more clarification from BobNJ1960....not #117
Re post #114 -- I think the first paragraph was fine, strongly asserting the differences, but yeah, the first line of the second paragraph 'we have this thing called the first amendment' is kind of condescending, implying a belief of superiority. He should have left that sentence out (I'm guessing that you put superiority in quotes each time because that specific wording wasn't used, why you used imply in this post, and of course I then tripped myself into that 'lane of meaning' by using the word assertion).
Re post #116 -- Yeah, the use of the term 'PC nonsense' is problematic.
Re Post #117 -- That post = a thumbs up on another post...that is a 3 sentence post. Without clarification from BobNJ1960, I don't concede this post. He might just have agreed with part of it and, re not enough time or some other reason, just thumbs upped the post rather than bolding part of it if he only agreed with part of it. If he was intentionally thumbs upping the 'PC nonsense' sentence, then yes, I concede post #117.
Those last four paragraphs = re feeling that our (U.S.) freedom of speech is superior to how speech is dealt with, so to speak, in Canada.
For argument's sake, lets say you won re all of the other freedoms, by default at the very least, as you put up links and no one is arguing against you/those (that I noticed..yet), and I doubt anyone will, for a variety of reasons....
....Given that I still stand by the you haven't proven that our freedom of speech isn't superior. Not because you, or anyone else, is incapable....but because (see the last couple of paragraphs of my post #152) the notion of what is or isn't superior is subjective. The particular components that are unique to us might comprise almost the entire conversation about what free speech is/what is valuable about free speech to some Americans, whereas other Americans might 'allot' those components along the same lines that many Canadians might. Within how the different applicable components exist in Canada, I'm sure people also weight the different components differently. For example having, the particular hate speech laws you have might be 95% of what one person likes/values how speech is dealt with in Canada, and it might be 10% re what another Canadian values. Neither is wrong, just different.
One thing I found in, IIRC, your CNN link that prompted me to SMH for just a second (considering this thread)....the guy here in Texas who made the 'supposedly kidding' threat and is now in jail.......his father.....obviously upset.......claimed it was a woman in Canada who reported his son .
"Bar owners, managers, and tenders across America are allowed to refuse service to individuals in “Make America Great Again” hats. That’s what Manhattan Supreme Court Justice David Cohen ruled Wednesday when he dismissed a lawsuit filed by a man who was ejected from a New York City watering hole because of his MAGA headwear,"
"In throwing out the lawsuit, Cohen determined that supporting Trump is not, actually, a form of religion. “Plaintiff does not state any faith-based principle to which the hat relates,” the justice said, per the Post. Instead, Piatek’s removal from The Happiest Hour was simply a “petty” slight, and pettiness is not against the law."
How could this have happened?
Wow.
You Canadians in this thread (and people from other countries as applicable) have my permission (not that you would ever need it ) to rub this in the noses of we Americans forever .
The guy who filed that lawsuit launches being pathetic into a new universe.
IMO, that guy, by filing that lawsuit, exhibited more 'snowflakeyness' than Trump at his whiniest does, AND more than I have ever seen anyone on CD exhibit.
It is probably good that it extends to bartenders....not being able to appeal 'up the chain' probably helps 'nip any issues in the bud'.
If Trump became aware of this (the article is from April), I wouldn't be surprised if it raised his blood pressure just a wee bit more because this happened in Manhattan .
Maga hats or gay couples wanting a cake, its all the same. Ownership should have the right to refuse svc for any reason.
Unless we read two different stories, the owner fired an employee over his confronting a customer over a political hat.
I own a few businesses and expect my employees to provide service to every customer, whether they are wearing a "I Hate Whitey" or "Homos Will Burn In Hell" tee shirt.
Their personal views, politics, hangups, etc. can be freely expressed on their own time, so long as they do not associate my business with their views.
But when they are on the clock working for me, they had better serve every customer with respect.
---
I'll also add that leftist/liberal media has created an environment where people in other countries are suffering from TDS, when they shouldn't care about who are president is. I doubt they are worked up over other countries leaders, so why would they give a flip about who are president is.
`
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. I could be wrong however. If I'm incorrect in my assessment of those poster's intent, I'll yield to public opinion and eat crow.
.
.
